McCain Announces On Letterman

Apparently, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) will announce he his running for president tonight on David Letterman. AHH, but he said the official announcement will be in April. That still leaves room for him to change his mind. If his numbers don't get better by then, look for a different announcement.

Don't Look For President McCain

I start by writing that I am not an oracle, soothsayer or clairvoyant. That said, looking at the Republican presidential field, I really believe that the reason Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is delaying his official announcement for the Republican nomination is because he will announce that he is not running.
Why do I think that?
There are many signs out there.
For instance, since Rudy Giuliani "officially" announced on CNN's Larry King Live that he is running for the GOP presidential nomination, his numbers have gone way up. At the expense of Sen. McCain.
Yes, Sen. McCain is grabbing many of the GOP's best and brightest stratigists, but they are giving lousy advice.
Sen. McCain should be constantly on talk radio. Both Mr. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney make themselves easily accessible to the conservative talk radio hosts but also bloggers. Sen. McCain looks tight as a Boy Scout knot on the Sunday morning borefest talk shows.
Most importantly, he has little if any money on hand. Again, both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney have a lot of money on hand and many portals to access more. Also, if I am wrong and Sen. McCain does indeed run, he will have to make a serious choice as to whether or not to accept federal campaign funds. If he does, it will severely limit how much money he can raise on his own. Also, he would be seen by many as a hypocrite who shoved so-called campaign finance reform but when it would come to himself throw it out the window.
One last thing. He tried to run as an outsider in 2000, but in 2008 is doing all he can to try to get the dominant conservative wing of the party in his corner. Good luck!
So, when he finally does make the announcement, if it is to not run, the DDBMSM will try to make it devastating to the hopes of the GOP. They will say this automatically helps Mr. Giuliani, but more will help Mr. Romney.
But, you read it here first. Sen. John McCain will not run for president.
In that case the GOP race will really get interesting.

Brit Hume Calls It As He Sees It

You have just got to love Brit Hume over at the Fox News Channel. I mean, he is both a real reporter in Washington, not a flunky like, oh say David Gregory at NBC, and analyst.
Last week on one of his Special Report roundtables on FNC, he said the following regarding another diatribe from congressman John Murtha (D-Penn) regarding the Iraq situation:
"That soundbite you played from John Murtha suggests that it's time a few things be said about him. Even the Washington Post noted that he didn't seem particulary well informed about what's going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cache among House Democrats, but this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world."
Way to go Brit! It is about time someone other than talk radio or conservative commentators tell the truth about this bore.
This Murtha is a case study in why term limits are needed. He has been around the House since 1978. He won his seat due to his service in Vietnam, the favorite war of the Democrats because we lost.
He came this close to being indicted in a bribery scandal in the early 1980s
Like so many Kerry Democrats, he first voted to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq, but went against it when the polls of the American people went south. He is finding any way to cut money off of the Iraq mission which would in fact force the president to bring the troops home and insure defeat.
Murtha is in short, a moron. But one who has been around Washington a long time and may make his mark cutting the money for the mission.
It will take more than Brit Hume to point out that this is not the Dems best spokesman on the anti-war effort.
Thanks to Laura Ingraham who had this as her "Soundbite of the week" (www.lauraingraham.com).

Thank God-No Bush-Hating Hell

I want to stand corrected.
According to an unimpeachable source, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast, The Academy Awards was not a four hour Bush-hating hell. It was tame and she did not like the choice for best picture, The Departed.
So, please let me know who was right, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast or myself!

Four Hours Of Bush-Hating Hell

Tonight, Hollywood gets together for, ostensivly, the academy Awards, but alas, I am afraid that it will turn into four hours of a Bush-hating diatribe from beginning to end.
Now, as is custom, I will not watch such dreck as I get my fill from the evening news, the local newspaper and all sources in between. But, I know at some point, the sanctimonious blowhard, Al Gore will give an acceptance speech for winning the best "Documentary" movie of the year, "An inconvenient Truth." Who knows, he might even announce that he is running for president. Everyone else has.
Personally, I don't get the adulation and adoration of relatively uneducated bores that read lines, adequately at best, and there so-called work. It is, as Cal Thomas (www.townhall.com) pointed out in a recent column the anti-hero. We are waiting for bated breath as to where Anna Nicole Smith's decomposing body is going to be buried and what of the many men she had bedded is the father of her only surviving child. We wait to see that next time, Britany Spears may take a razor to slit her throat instead of just shaving her head. We wait to see the next anti-Jewish tirade from the lips of Mel Gibson. The list goes on.
While America fritters away at this anti-hero worship, it is any wonder that the Islamofacists laugh at us as they prepare for the next deadly attack on our homeland. It is no wonder that Mexico lectures us about how we should patrol our borders. It is any wonder that George W. Bush wants to be our president under this climate.
But, trust me. If you like movies and want to watch the academy Awards orgasm tonight, be prepared for four hours of Bush-bashing, the sport of the Socialist left.

Why The Buzz About Mormons?

Since former Massachussetts Gov. Willard "Mitt" Romney (R-Mass) announced he was running for president, many in the DBDMSM have decided that it is time to expose him for being-get ready folks-a Mormon! Oh heavens! Oh the humanity!
So, what is the big deal, I mean are they not Christians? Would we call them protestants?
Well, most people can simply go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, what Mormons are officially known as, website (www.mormon.org) and pretty much find out what one needs to to make one self educated about the basic beliefs and practices or the church.
I will admit, it is not what I understand about the Christian faith. I prefer to call some of the different teachings extracurricular Christianity.
They do believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. However, they believe that they are thre disctinct persons, not the three in one. They also believe in another testament of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon. As an Episcopalian, we also have another book, the Book of Common Prayer. It is not in addition to the bible, but the greatest form of worship known to man. That would be the 1928 prayer book. Also, Mormons believe in baptism. But, they do not limit it to the living. They believe in, for shorthand, baptising the dead because they never had the chance to hear the Gospel. Also, it is true that Mormons wear embroidered undergarments. To hear most Mormons explain it, it is like a spiritual fortress and a reminder that they are His own.
Now, I obviously do not subscribe to this religion, but I do not want to denigrate someone who does. And, what is perplexing about this is why now, that a Republican Mormon is running for president is there so much interest and even scorn?
Is not the senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a Mormon? Why has there been no intense scruitny of him as a Mormon? Is it because he is with the right party, the Democrats? One has to wonder.
Here is a new flash. Mormons are no different from any other religion in the United States. There are conservatives, probably the overwhelming majority, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, backsliders, also known as Jackmormons, and everything in between.
If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee and is elected president, he will not be the evangelizer in chief. He will be president of the United States. Of the Roman Catholics, Jews, Protestants and yes, Mormons.
So, we should take a look at Mormons believe so that we get an understanding of what Mr. Romney will be like as president. But, that alone should not be a reason to vote against someone.

The Way To Victory

Now that you have read the Hugh Hewitt interview with retired Lt. Gen. Odom, you should go over to Victory Caucus (www.victorycaucus.com), sign up and work hard to find some Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to take a run at these loser Runningpublicans, as in cut and run. There are not that many, not even 15 as of late, but that is 15 too many. We need to unite Republicans and 9/11 Democrats, few that there are, around what President Bush said at the state of the union-victory!

Not The Way To Victory

Hugh Hewitt (www.hguhhewiit.com) had a very revealing interview with retired Lt. Gen William Odom. Let us just say two things. He is not a fan of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. Also, he is very dismissive of history. Go over to the Hugh Hewitt website and read the transcript of the interview. All I can say is thank God he is retired!

Obama Announces...YAWN!

So, the new Great Democrat Hope, Barack Obama has made it official, he is running for the Democrat nomination for president.
What a yawn!
Obama, besides being "multicultural" as in black and white, is as to the left of the nation as any other Democrat in the field of announced and semi-announced candidates.
What will give him any edge is that he is, as Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) put it so subtly, a "clean" and "articulate" black candidate, why the first in the Democrat party. I guess we should not count the Reverends Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I wouldn't either if I was a Democrat!
But more than that, where the the first term senator stand on the issues?
He does get an "A" for consistency as he has streadfastly been against the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. We do not know if he takes the fallback, Hillary Clinton position of wanting to put more United States troops in Afghanistan for any reason but to show NOT a total withdrawal from the War Against Terror.
On taxes, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts.
On health care, he would fast track the United States into socialist medicine.
On the social issues, he is pro abortion and we are not sure his stand on same sex "marriage". But, he does belong to the most liberal Christian Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ, which performs same sex "marriage".
Basically, he is to the left of most Americans. He makes Hillary look positively like a moderate.
He will only be able to use the "African American" aspect of his candidacy for so long. Eventually, even the Democrat left wing will want to know how he will govern.
They may be happy, but the rest of America will not and whether or not he wins the Democrat nomination, he, nor any Democrat will be elected president in 2008.

The Border Agent Fiasco

The recent case of two border control agents convicted for shooting and illegal alien and drug runner fleeing back to Mexico is a complex and convoluded case that shows our southern border to be nothing but a mess that the clowns in Washington do not want to seem to solve.
The agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were convicted on Decmeber 1, 2006, for trying to detain a suspected Illegal, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. He fled and had marijuana in his possesion. Essentially, the two agents were convicted for a bad shoot, going into Mexico to get him and trying to cover it up.
There are a lot of flaws in how the agents were convicted.
It has become a cause celebre for the Pat Buchanan shut the borders down crowd.
But, those of us who want legitimate border control, which includes a fence, major increases in the border patrol and utilizing the National Guard much more than being done now, are realizing that something is not right.
What needs to be done?
A) Get to the bottom of the Homeland Security agent in charge who testified before congress as to why he lied before them. FInd out if the subordanates gave false information.
B) Expedite the trial transcript. Once there is a complete reading of the trial transcript, one of two conclusions be drawn. Everything that the prosucution presented was acurate and the agents were given a fair trial. Or there was faulty evidence and the agents have grounds for an appeal.
C) Make sure that the agents are NOT in the general prison population. Agent Ramos was severely beaten by, you gussed it, illegal alliens in the fedreal prison system. The agents must be protected while they are in prison and pending appeal of the conviction.
The president CAN pardon the agents and end this potential debacle. He can do it in good faith to negotiate real immigration reform. It is a long shot, but something has to be done to put this issue to rest.

Intelligence

Just a question.
Why do the Democrats point to latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the situation in Iraq, but now say that it was wrong and they were "mislead" into voting for war in Iraq?
For political reasons, as almost anythings with the Democrats, they will say "See what the intelligence says now" But they were so quick when things have not looked so good in Iraq to bash intelligence. What makes them think that this is any better? Maybe it is wrong and the situation will vastly improve in Iraq.
Remember those that wanted to teach the GOP a lesson and we have the Democrats. We get this illgical leap and have a lot to look forward in this regard for the next two years.

Stop Taking Conservatives For Granted

To those who think that we who have signed the pledge NOT to give any money to any GOP senator who votes for any resolution that opposes President Bush's increase of troops in Iraq, it is just one more case of establishment GOPer's taking the conservative, dominent wing of the party for granted.
They like our money to get them elected or reelected, but ingore the issues that matters most when it comes time to take lesgistative action. In fact, they mock us as not really understanding how things really work. It is really sickening how this plays out when the Republican party is NOT in the majority in the House or Senate.
The mulitude of resolutions that are floating around the Senate almost all oppose the troop buildup in Iraq. Sen. John Warner (R-Virginia) is leading a "less strongly" worded disaproval. He says that it is either too late or will not help. How does he know? Is he clairvoient? And, what if the situation does improve in say six months? By not even giving the increase a chance, he has indicated he is giving up. So is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Sen Brownback (R-Kansas), Sens Snowe & Collins (R-Maine).
Yes, there have been mistakes made. Now we do have a chance to rectify it and should do everything we can to win as the president says.
The above mentioned Senators are part of the problem. They will say that we who support the president's plan are not realistic. They look at polls and can not stand on principle. Look at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). She cravenly said over the weekend in Iowa that she did not vote to give President Bush the use of force in Iraq and that he "misused" it and if she knew what she knows now, she would have not voted for the war. Wonderful; standing by what you believe, or don't believe.
To those lacking backbone, please develop one. Stop looking at polls now. They are not a real indication of what will be next year when the situation will be different.
You who voted for the war, and you did vote for a war, stand by the vote and stand by the president. Stop worrying about YOUR political future. You will not get the support of the people you need to win reeelction, conservatives. Either you believe we will win or you want us to lose. There is no in between. No deal to cut.

Sign The Pledge!

Sorry, I have had some computer issues and not been able to blog.
But, the capitulation of the Republican leadership to allow the Biden Resolution to come to a vote without a serious fight is undermining the war effort in Iraq. If you do not believe me, General Petraeus, who was confirmed today by an 81-0 vote of the senate, says it will.
It is nothing more than the I-hate-George W. Bush crowd to stick it to him. Of course, this is a meaningless resolution because it is just a sense of the senate resolution, no legal binding. But, while the Bush haters go after the president, they are using American soldiers for their cheap political stunt.
Please, go to www.truthlaidbear.com and show the senate Republican leadership that you mean business. Sign the pledge that Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) that WE will not support their cave in and to stop using us when it comes to election time and OUR cash and not even stand up to cheap-shot Democratic senators.

Someone Needs To Defend Dennis Prager

Poor Dennis Prager! He is making one of the most salient points about the evils of multiculturalism in the United States and no one, not even the most conservative out there seems to be defending him when he is right. Well, I will
This is in reference to a column he wrote (www.pragerradio.com) in reference to the newly elected Keith Ellison, congressman from Minnesota, and that he will be taking the oath of office on the Koran rather than the Holy Bible. Prager had the nerve, the nerve I tell you, to suggest that he not take the oath on the Koran but instead on the Holy Bible as have every other congressman, Christian or not, has done in the previous 230 years of America.
Well, after that firestorm, Mr. Prager amended that to let Mr. Ellison take the oath on the Koran and the Holy Bible. Still, no one has looked at this as multiculturalism and multireligiousity gone amok.
But look, no one is saying that Mr. Ellison can not practice Islam, but what Islam supports and runs counter to is the Sharia law, based in part on the Koran. Not to go into the history of the Sharia, but lets just say it is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.
Like it or not, our founding was based in the strong belief of many of the founding fathers in the Christian belief that all comes from God, including law. That is something Mr. Ellison and most Christians can in fact agree on. So, why the resistance and intransigence by Mr. Ellison and the CAIR crowd? Because it would put Islam as equal with Christianity and thus one does not really know if when the United States constitution conflicts with Shari, where will Mr. Ellison's loyalties lie? How will he vote? No answer on that because no one wants to bring up those points.
I say that Mr. Ellison should take the oath with both the Koran and the Holy Bible as a recognition that the Holy Bible is the basis for law and order and that the Koran is the holy book of the God he worships. That is what Mr. Prager has come to.
Rather than to out and out lie as the opponents of Mr. Prager do by saying that he said in his column that this would lead to a neo-Nazi wanting to do the oath on Mein Kampf, read the column.
I think we should have a reasonable debate on this issue, but I also think that Mr. Ellison should be thankful that this is happening here, not in the land of Islam.

Yesterday, the Iraq Study Group report came to fruition and was formally presented to President Bush and congress, who set up this abomination in the first place. All I can say is what a big yawn.
This is what we waited for? To suck up to Iran and Syria with nothing in our hip pocket? To seriously consider the Palestinians "right of return", which will wipe out the State of Israel?
Firstly, let me be blunt. I don't trust anything James Baker is involved in. Ever since he was in charge of prepping then President Ronald Reagan in the first debate with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, which was a disaster, there has been less to trust. And, I will say it, he is an anti-Semite. The infamous line, "F--- the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway." says it all.
Then look at the rest of the panel, an average age of 67. Sixty-seven?! Where is someone who has been post cold war? Of course, for different reasons, one can not trust a panel that former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana).
The prescription that this "Study Group" is for retreat and defeat. That simple.
fortunately, President Bush is not saying "Gee, thanks I will do all 79 recommendations today!" No, Mr. Bush is saying he will wait until the more serious Pentagon report comes out. Also, the administration immediately dismissed direct talks with Iran and Syria.
At least when then President Reagan finally talked seriously with the Soviet Union, he was holding all the good cards in the deck. What do we have now to even seriously think about conversing with Iran and Syria? Nothing.
The bottom line, Mr. Bush should have said, "Thank you very much for all your hard work, considering when you were in Iraq, only one of you got out of the Green Zone. I will read and consider what you have recommended." Then, he should have thrown it in the trash can.

Newt Hits It Out Of The Park!

Newt Gingrich gets it right what went wrong in last weeks midterm elections (www.humaneventsonline.com).
In his piece, he says it like it is. Conservatism did not lose but the Republican party lost its way. He offers the Reagan prescription, not the give in to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" formula for certain disaster for the Republican party.
Boldness, not cowardice, will bring the Republicans back to control not only the congress but the White House in 2008.

Give Me A Conservative GOPer Over A Moderate Anytime

The recent midterm election is instructive in how different media likes to spin it.
For instance, many of the Republicans who lost in the house were moderates, to the left of President Bush and rank-and-file Republican voters. My theory is that in a marginal district, given the choice between a moderate Republican and a Democrat, the Democrat will win. Why would those voters want watered-down Democrat lite when they can have the real thing?
But because California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won reelection in convincing manner, many tout him as a future for the GOP. NOT!
Why you may ask?
During the last weekend of the campaign, his reelection all but assured, he did not campaign for fellow Republicans down ticket. Instead, he campaigned for five bond measures to "rebuild" California. They were assured of passing and all did by varying percentages.
But, there were other candidates like Lt. Governor candidate Tom McClintock that could have used some face time with Gov. Arnold. After all, McClintock made nice with Gov. Arnold and staved off a conservative revolt. The thanks he got was like all other Republican candidates was get to the back of the Arnold bus. By the way, McClintock lost by only two percent.
To build a party, you must all be together, after all, it is a coalition. When personalities get in the way, as it has with Gov. Arnold, then what could have been is that-what could have been.
Take New York state. Gov. George Pataki ran 12 years ago as a conservative and party builder. Since then he built a cult of personality and decimated the Republican party in New York. The only candidate to get 40 percent or more of the vote in the last election was the candidate for Controller-he still lost.
The worst case is the money that the NRSC spent on Sen. Lincoln Chafee to try to get this least Republican reelected in Rhode Island. Now, he is still holding up a vote on UN ambassador John Bolton. And to top it off, he is thinking of leaving the Republican party. That is the thanks we get supporting a moderate.
Here is a clue about those who are moderates. It is not all about you. It is about building up a party with some different elements. Some may not be social conservatives and that is ok. Some may not be fiscal hawks and that is ok. All should at the very least believe in the core of the party values.
But, alas, these days the moderates, driven by the DBDMSM are convinced that they are the saviors of today's Republican party. We won the White House in 1980 with conservative Ronald Reagan. We won the complete control of congress in 1994 overwhelmingly with conservatives. It is conservatives that always seem to have to help the moderates, never the other way around.
Moderates in the Republican party today seem to only be looking out for number one-themselves. Conservatives look for the whole party, including moderates.
For the above reason, I'll always take a conservative over a moderate GOPer any day!

The GOP Leadership Battle

I recommend that if you have questions for the candidates for the Republican leadership to the house of representatives, check out TruthLaidBear (www.truthlaidbear.com).
My question is, will they realize that raw power does not matter if you tolerate the corruption that was rightfully exposed in the 1990's?
It appears that maybe the case if they elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) as minority leader. I think that would be perfect irony. I mean, why did Ken Blackwell lose his bid for governor? Mike De Wine reelection to the senate? Because the Ohio GOP was so corrupt that the governor, Bob Taft, had to plead no contest in court. No, Mike Pence (R-Indiana) is the right choice. New face, committed Reagan conservative. One who will hold the Democrats accountable.
And why would Republicans elect Roy Blunt as minority whip? He is a huge part of the problem. He still does not get that the "earmarks" that went up from 1,500 to 15,000 is part of the problem. John Shadegg (R-Arizona) is a much better choice.
I say ask the questions. What they need to know before the leadership elections on Wednesday is where the grassroots stand on major issues and and they perceive the election loss of congress. I mean, some governorships are easy to explain and are not potentially as long term as congress.
What the Republican party needs to do is twofold. Reinjuvenate the conservative coalition. It does not help when just before the election, former house majority leader Dick Armey is blaming conservative Christians. Nor for now DBDMSM author David Kuo to blame White House insiders for disrespecting conservative Christians and not being enthusiastic about President Bush's faith-based initiative. Stop the finger pointing. We are all conservatives and, if we respect each other will have a fair hearing and up and down votes on issues that concern both, which is the vast majority of issues.
After that, have new leadership that remembers what the Republican party is all about. It is the real reform party. We don't stand for watered down liberalism, being better at making the trains run on time so to speak. When the Republican party came to power in both houses in 1994, it was on reform. What happened is we got drunk on power and many within our great coalition just could not take it anymore. Only new faces and aggressiveness can bring about reform. We have to be worried when in consistent polling data after the elections, many thought the Democrats would be better and keeping government spending and the size of government under control better than the Republicans.
Go to Truth Laid Bear and ask the questions they will ask. Also, look for new people to lead. It is the only way we can reform and lead back in congress.

Why The Los Angeles Times Is A Failure No Matter Who Owns It

As a conservative Republican in Southern California, one thing that I notice is how many no longer read and or subscribe to the Los Angeles Times, the largest newspaper in the region and the west, or left, coast. It is many judging by the consistent plunge in subscribers and readers. It begs the question, why?
It has, for most of my 42 years on God's green earth been left of center. It has been not exactly a supporter of Ronald Reagan's two runs for governor or president. It rarely supports any Republican candidates for office, but did endorse Governor Arnold this year.
But it goes beyond that. It is the culture of the newsroom and the editors and the lack of understanding the diversity of the area that they cover.
If the Washington press corps is hovering around 90% in favor of Democrats and their policies, do you not think it is the same at the Times? Do you not think it permeates in the way that a story is covered, and what kind of story is pursued? Of course it does and conservatives have come to realize that the Times does not care about having a conservative readership.
I am not suggesting that they become a shill for conservative Republicans, but for all the left wing criticism of Fox News Channel, it does make a concerted effort to present both sides to a story. It does cover stories that the DBDMSM won't. That is why it is so popular.
Look at the way that the recent election was covered. It was tilted worse than an old pinball machine in favor to the Democrats. It never refers to current house minority leader Nancy Pelosi as a left winger. In the prism of the DBDMSM, there are no left wingers. But, any casual observer would have to see that Mrs. Pelosi is a left winger. So are many of the incoming chairs to the house and senate committees.
While the Republicans deserved in a sense the beating we took, where is the story about what the Republican party will do now?
The most glaring problem, not just with the Times, but in general, how religion is covered. Only when there is scandal does the DBDMSM seem to care. Does any one over at the Times ever do positive or in depth articles about evangelical Christians, observant Jews and mainstream Islamics without and slant or bias? No. But, you will see how they are mocked or treated with such disrespect. I mean, we all know that Pastor Ted Haggard had a seedy life with drugs and a gay prostitute. But, had there been any articles about the good and positive things that the New Life church had accomplished? We are treated to how terrible it is that the IRS is going after very left wing All Saints Episcopal Church, or as I refer to it as All Socialists. Where were they when the IRS during the Clinton administration went after a church in upstate New York and took away their tax-exempt status?
It is, simply put, the world view of the average journalist today that vanity and celebrity is good. Modesty and piety are a thing of the past and should not be taken seriously. Social justice is ok. Personal behavior does not matter unless one is being exposed for seemingly hypocritical behavior. Big government is good. Small government bad. Feeling is better than thinking.
That is why the Times will not change. Any owner will face the same problem unless they set down serious guidelines. Such as having a balanced op-ed page where multiple points of view are on display. Occasionally, have a pro conservative point of view in an actual editorial.
Have people that can write a coherent story about religion with some basic knowledge, not an agenda.
Don't look at conservatives as an expendable potential readership.
And maybe, don't be shy about how journalism is presented. In other words, make clear that "analysis" is really a point of view and don't hide behind that word.
The irony is that recently, the top 25 newspapers in the United States went down or flat in circulation. Except one. Do you know what that is? The New York Post. Some call it a tabloid rag, but it is the ONLY newspaper in the United States that has had consistent growth. Maybe it is because when you read the Post, they do not hide what they are.
Maybe that is what the DBDMSM should look at.
The culture of the newsroom has to change. Until then, conservatives will stop buying the Los Angeles Times and the other DBDMSM newspapers until they are treated with respect. Afterall, most American cities are now down to one newspaper. That alone one would think would make them MORE, not less, to reach out to a wider audinence.
Now, I will read the New York Post as I am watching FNC!

What Do We Do Now?

First, the Democrats deserve to have won both the House and Senate. Unlike the Republicans, they have been on offense for over a year. But, what do we Republicans do now.
Well, we do need to clean house and senate. So far that is a mixed bag. In the senate, Mitch McConnell will be the minority leader. Maybe Trent Lott will be the minority whip. I am not sure how that will play out. I like Mitch McConnell. He will give the Democrats fits. But Trent Lott, I wonder how that will play out. I think the senators need a fresh and engaging face. One thing is who they get to recruit candidates in 2008, when they have a good chance to take the senate back. Rumors are John Ensign of Nevada has the inside track. I think that is a good choice.
In the House, it is murky.
There are three candidates. They are John Bohener, I think a mistake. Also Mike Pence, a Reaganite and a much better choice. Also, Joe Barton of Texas, also a Reaganite. That is what we need, some one who remembers what it means to be a Republican.
It is not to have "earmarks" or cravenly keep raw power. It is not to try to keep scandalous people and encourage them to run for reelection. We probably lost at least 10 seats because of just that!
We need to stop being watered down Democrats. We need to stand on what got us the majority in 1994 in the first place. We need to reinvigorate the Contract With America. The Republican party was founded and thrived on reform. Not to expand government, one of the great failings of the present Bush administration.
One other thing. WE MUST get all 50 state parties in order. We need to, if it takes the next RNC national chairman to do it, get strong chairmen and recruit good candidates to run everywhere. We can not give up on places in the Northeast. We can't keep running squishy moderates who do not give the voters in this part of the country a real choice. Remember, they took a brunt of losses last night. Yea, we can lose a couple of election cycles in Massachusetts, but people will take a look if we provide a viable alternative. I would refer anyone to read "Painting The Map Red" by Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) for a roadmap. New York state should not suffer because soon to be former Governor George Pataki made it all about him at the cost of building a viable Republican party. Note that Governor Arnold!
That maybe a good long term strategy. Right now, we need to show America that we listened and will return to our roots at the national level. We have to keep that in mind at the state level as well.